Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers

[wenglund]

Please explain how you arrived to this conclusion. There is nothing in the context of this citation to suggest his translation of "some characters" was ever put to paper.

There is nothing in the context to say it wasn't put to paper. All that can explicitly derived from what I quoted is that "some characters were translated" and by way of that translation it was learned that papyri contained the records of Abraham and Joseph. From this it is reasonable to induce that the translation of those characters consisted of a translation of part of the Books of Abraham and Joseph, and that that translation consisted of words/texts.

So there is no evidence for a preexisting "text," only a preexisting translation.

Apparently, you are interpreting the word "text" overly literally. If it would be of help to you, please understand my meaning of the term "preexisting text" to be synonymous with "preexisting words,"

The context of this citation only tells us that he translated enough to determine the provenance of these records, which means he really didn't need to translate much at all. The bulk of the translation process was recorded in Joseph Smith's journals.

Again, the historical record isn't sufficiently specific to know precisely how much of the Book of Abraham was translated prior to July 18th, 1835, and how much was translated thereafter, though our argument #4 doesn't rely solely, nor even largely, on the historical record.

So if the Book of Abraham had already existed by July 1835, then how do we explain Parrish's participation?

First, we aren't arguing that all of the Book of Abraham was translated in the first half of July, just a portion.

Second, the quote from Parrish isn't sufficiently specific to know whether he was involved with translation of the Book of Abraham at all (he could have been involved in translating the Book of Joseph), let alone which portions of the Book of Abraham (it is possible he was involved in the translation of the last two chapters of the Book of Abraham or even some of the Book of Abraham that presumably was never published).

Also, is it just a wild coincidence that in 1842 Joseph Smith publishes the exact amount of translated text that appears on several of the KEP manuscripts of 1835?

I don't know if you are correct in your assumption about "exact amount," but even if so, I don't know that it is a coincidence.

And was Joseph Smith lying in March 1842 when he said he would begin translating for the next installment, which began with Abraham 2:19?

I see no reason to believe Joseph was lying or that his March statement is detrimental to our arguments.

Why would he say this if, according to you and Will, that text already existed as far back as July 1835?

We don't assume that this reference to him translating is specific to Abr. 2:19ff.

These are all hard hitting pieces of evidence I have yet to see the apologists address, and they all undermine the weak thesis that keeps being floated out on these forums, which is usually presented as though it were already "confirmed."

You are entitled to your opinion.

[delete dogmatic bloviations about what Will has yet to fully publish]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 13, 2011 by wenglund

[Xander]

No. There are other journal entries and authoritative statements which add support to the four other sub arguments previously listed in favor of a preexisting text, which may also be added to the seven argument delineated earlier in the thread against the proposition that the E/A/GAEL were intended and used to translate part of the Book of Abraham.

So what's with the suspense? Why not produce them?

There is nothing in the context to say it wasn't put to paper.

That isn't a very good argument that it was put to paper. Remember, this is crucial to your apologetic claim, so you're the one with the burden of proof. You allude to this citation, but it doesn't even begin to establish a preexistent text.

All that can explicitly derived from what I quoted is that "some characters were translated" and by way of that translation it was learned that papyri contained the records of Abraham and Joseph.

That's what I just said.

From this it is reasonable to induce that the translation of those characters consisted of a translation of part of the Books of Abraham and Joseph, and that that translation consisted of words/texts.

This is a non sequitur since words don't have to exist on texts. Joseph Smith gave translations and explanations verbally all the time.

Apparently, you are interpreting the word "text" overly literally.

Is there a metaphorical way of interpreting it? The context of Will's argument clearly refers to the existence of a literal preexistent text. We've been trying to tell him that the "narrative" already existed, just not on paper. But for his apologetic to carry any weight, he needs to establish a literal, preexistent text from which all these KEP documents were supposedly "copied." That's the thrust of the argument - the Book of Abraham was already translated on paper, therefore all these manuscripts cannot be the "original" dictated manuscripts.

If it would be of help to you, please understand my meaning of the term "preexisting text" to be synonymous with "preexisting words,"

That isn't Will's argument, and it never was.

Again, the historical record isn't sufficiently specific to know precisely how much of the Book of Abraham was translated prior to July 18th, 1835

Yes. That's what I just said.

and how much was translated thereafter, though our argument #4 doesn't rely solely, nor even largely, on the historical record.

Wrong. We can roughly determine how much was translated in 1842 based on Joseph Smith's own claim. We can also reasonably determine what was translated after October 1835, based on the KEP manuscripts as well as the hiring date of Warren Parrish. The exact amount is unknown, but we can determine an amount sufficient to thwart the claim that the same Book of Abraham content preexisted on paper, before all these documents were created - as John Gee has argued.

First, we aren't arguing that all of the Book of Abraham was translated in the first half of July, just a portion.

Who is we? John Gee's "Guide" to the Papyri argued precisely that. In a subsequent publication he even went so far to distort Joseph Smith's 1842 claim, saying he only "edited and revised" preexisting translations for the second publication. But what Joseph Smith actually said is that he would begin translating for the next installment.

Second, the quote from Parrish isn't sufficiently specific to know whether he was involved with translation of the Book of Abraham at all (he could have been involved in translating the Book of Joseph)

But there is no evidence that a Book of Joseph was ever translated at all, let alone during his tenure as scribe. You're fishing for any "possible" alternative without addressing the ones that are probable. We have textual evidence in Parrish's handwriting, for a Book of Abraham translation. Parrish's testimony is specific enough to know that something had to have been translated during his employment beginning in October 1835. The BoA manuscripts in his handwriting constitute strong evidence that he was involved in the translation of the BoA. The plethora of journal entries between October and December, strongly suggest the same. There is no reason to postulate him being involved in a Book of Joseph project, especially when there is no evidence that such a project ever took place.

I don't know if you are correct in your assumption about "exact amount," but even if so, I don't know that it is a coincidence.

Really? You did not know that the first publication of the Book of Abraham included only Abraham 1:1-Abraham 2:18? You did not know that the Book of Abraham Manuscript 2 in the handwriting of Phelps and Parrish, dating to late 1835, consisted of this exact amount of text?

let alone which portions of the Book of Abraham (it is possible he was involved in the translation of the last two chapters of the Book of Abraham or even some of the Book of Abraham that presumably was never published).

No, that isn't likely unless you consider Joseph Smith a liar, because in 1842 Joseph Smith tells us that he would begin translating for the upcoming publication that would begin with Abraham 2:19.

I see no reason to believe Joseph was lying or that his March statement is detrimental to our arguments.

Really? Ok, then look at it this way.

March 1, 1842 the first installment of the Book of Abraham is published, including precisely what was present on the 1835 BoA Manuscript 2, in the handwriting of scribes Parrish and Phelps. This publication appeared in issue number 9 of the Times and Seasons.

A week later, March 8, 1842, according to Dean Jesse's Joseph Smith Papers, Joseph Smith:

"commenced Translating from the Book of Abraham, for the 10 No of the Times and Seasons - and was engaged at his office day and evening."

The next day, March 9, 1842, we see a similar entry:

"Examining copy for the Times and Seasons presented by Taylor and Bennett... in the afternoon continued Translation of the Book of Abraham... and continued translating and revising and Reading letters in the evening."

A week later this translation was published, beginning with Abraham 2:19.

Now do you see how devastating this is to apologetic claims? We can see from the above that, contrary to Gee, Joseph Smith explicitly claimed to be engaged in translation, on both days!

You are entitled to your opinion.

As are we all. But we're not entitled to our own evidence or facts. The evidence is what it is, and it must be dealt with before anyone should be expected to entertain these wild hypotheticals posed by the apologists.

[delete dogmatic bloviations about what Will has yet to fully publish]

Don't blame Will for YOUR claim. You are the one who made the claim about "mounting evidence" so I asked you to produce just three examples. If it makes it easier, how about you present just one example? Is that really too much to ask? You see, it is really easy to keep talking about evidence this and evidence that, when no one is really willing to produce examples. But it does absolutely nothing to further discussion on the subject. So let's get down to the nitty gritty and discuss your "mounting" pile of evidences.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

Kevin,

Please try and stay focused. The quotes from the HoC I cited earlier, to which you have been objecting, weren't necessarily intended, themselves, as direct support of a preexisting written text (though one may reasonably extrapolate such), but rather in support of a preexisting partial translation of the BoA--via whatever medium one may conjecture. Whether that translation was written down or not, at this point in the process of ME laying out the evidence, it is still an open question (more to come later).

This means that if you wish to object to MY use or interpretation of the quotes I cited, you need to do so in terms of the context in which I presented them, and not in terms of some argument you may have raging in your mind with what Will or Gee may have said or may yet say in the future about this or that.

With that having been said, and getting back to focus, do you disagree with me that the citations I provided are evidence of a preexisting translation?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 14, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Wrong. We can roughly determine how much was translated in 1842 based on Joseph Smith's own claim. We can also reasonably determine what was translated after October 1835, based on the KEP manuscripts as well as the hiring date of Warren Parrish.

I believe you are more than a bit confused here. I was referring to what OUR arguments AREN'T solely or largely reliant upon, and not what YOUR arguments ARE solely or largely reliant upon. Do you not understand this important distinction?

The exact amount is unknown, but we can determine an amount sufficient to thwart the claim that the same Book of Abraham content preexisted on paper, before all these documents were created...

Please understand that what YOU may determine in YOUR opinion, isn't binding upon what WE may determine to the contrary from the history.

But there is no evidence that a Book of Joseph was ever translated at all, let alone during his tenure as scribe.

That may be your ignorant opinion. We disagree.

You're fishing for any "possible" alternative without addressing the ones that are probable.

Your blowing smoke without paying proper attention to what I am actually arguing.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 14, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

-continued-

We have textual evidence in Parrish's handwriting, for a Book of Abraham translation.

You have textual evidence in Parrish's hand of Egyptian characters being written next to BoA text. Based on that evidence you have wildly ASSUMED that the Parrish Mss. constitutes a translation. I disagree. Rather, I suspect that it may have been an alternative to, or a worksheet for continuing production of, the GAEL. However, this is beside the specific point now at issue.

Parrish's testimony is specific enough to know that something had to have been translated during his employment beginning in October 1835.

So? It isn't specific enough for us to definitively know what exactly was translated.

The BoA manuscripts in his handwriting constitute strong evidence that he was involved in the translation of the BoA.

That is your opinion. My opinion is that the only strong evidence within the Parrish Mss is that Parrish was involved with writing Egyptian characters next to BoA text.

The plethora of journal entries between October and December, strongly suggest the same.

The five very brief HoC references from November to December (Parrish didn't became Joseph's scribe until November) simply speak to translating, or translating the ancient record. They give absolutely no indication as to what was translated--the BoA or the Book of Joseph, or what part, if any, of the BoA. But, you are free to widely conjecture, even if this is beside the specific point you objected to earlier.

There is no reason to postulate him being involved in a Book of Joseph project, especially when there is no evidence that such a project ever took place.

Again, that is your ignorant opinion. We have reason to believe otherwise.

Really? You did not know that the first publication of the Book of Abraham included only Abraham 1:1-Abraham 2:18?

I wasn't questioning what passages were published, but whether the text were exactly the same as you suggest.

You did not know that the Book of Abraham Manuscript 2 in the handwriting of Phelps and Parrish, dating to late 1835, consisted of this exact amount of text?

I am not sure which of the two Mss. in Parrish's handwriting you had in mind, but I was under the impression that they differed somewhat from what may be found in the Willard Richard's Mss.

No, that isn't likely unless you consider Joseph Smith a liar, because in 1842 Joseph Smith tells us that he would begin translating for the upcoming publication that would begin with Abraham 2:19.

No. Smith mentioned that he recommenced translating from the record of Abraham for the tenth number of the Times and Seasons. He did not indicate that his translation would begin with Abraham 2:19. That is something YOU conjecture based on what ended up being published in that issue. I see no reason to consider Joseph a liar, or consider the evidence problematic for our position, based on YOUR disputed conjecture. Sorry.

Really? Ok, then look at it this way.

March 1, 1842 the first installment of the Book of Abraham is published, including precisely what was present on the 1835 BoA Manuscript 2, in the handwriting of scribes Parrish and Phelps. This publication appeared in issue number 9 of the Times and Seasons.

However, it only included a portion of what may be found on Willard Richard's Mss. (Joseph's scribe in 1842)--you know, the only Mss. that contains the explanations for facsimile 1.

A week later, March 8, 1842, according to Dean Jesse's Joseph Smith Papers, Joseph Smith:

"commenced Translating from the Book of Abraham, for the 10 No of the Times and Seasons - and was engaged at his office day and evening."

The next day, March 9, 1842, we see a similar entry:

"Examining copy for the Times and Seasons presented by Taylor and Bennett... in the afternoon continued Translation of the Book of Abraham... and continued translating and revising and Reading letters in the evening."

A week later this translation was published, beginning with Abraham 2:19.

Now do you see how devastating this is to apologetic claims?

No. I can only see how YOUR disputed opinion about what was translated differs from OURS.

We can see from the above that, contrary to Gee, Joseph Smith explicitly claimed to be engaged in translation, on both days!

I can't speak for Gee, but you are here conversing with me, and I have yet to deny that Joseph was engaged in translation on both those days. Where you and I differ is what portion of the BoA was being translated, and what that translation may have consisted of (I am partial to the word "revise" in Joseph's journal).

But, again, this is beside the specific point from which you launched this tangent.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 14, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

-continued-

As are we all. But we're not entitled to our own evidence or facts. The evidence is what it is, and it must be dealt with before anyone should be expected to entertain these wild hypotheticals posed by the apologists.

My point was for you to stop confusing evidence with opinion.

The evidence in support of our various arguments are being presented in their due time.

Don't blame Will for YOUR claim.

I didn't. You obviously confused my reference to what you said, as somehow blaming Will for something I said.

You are the one who made the claim about "mounting evidence" so I asked you to produce just three examples. If it makes it easier, how about you present just one example? Is that really too much to ask? You see, it is really easy to keep talking about evidence this and evidence that, when no one is really willing to produce examples. But it does absolutely nothing to further discussion on the subject. So let's get down to the nitty gritty and discuss your "mounting" pile of evidences.

How about this: YOU get to decide what evidence and arguments YOU believe you wish to and are in a position to present, and I will do the same from MYSELF. Is that asking too much?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 14, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Again, let's focus, Kevin:

1. In this thread you have agreed that the quotes I cited indicate that prior to the EA/GAEL there was a translation of some characters from which it was learned that the Egyptian papyri contained the records of Abraham and Joseph.

2. Also in this thread you said: "We've been trying to tell him [Will] that the "narrative" already existed [prior to the Ea/GAEL], just not on paper.

3. In the past on another board you have argued that portions of the BoA were taken from the Book of Genesis--i.e. the translation of the BoA consisted, in part, of reproducing the Book of Genesis. Clearly, the Book of Genesis was put to paper and clearly it existed long before the EA/GAEL. Essentially, from your point of view, it was a preexisting text of, in part, the translation of portions of the BoA.

So, it strikes me as quite odd that you are arguing against our proposition that in relation to the EA/GAEL there was a preexisting text of the translation of a portion of the BoA.

Be that as it may, I am wonder if you believe the EA/GAEL to have been dependent upon the text you argue was preexisting?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Regarding whether the preexisting translation of part of the BoA was put to paper or not, Kevin contends that the two quotes I cited earlier do not explicitly or implicitly suggest that the translations were written down.

It may interest him to learn that many of the notations in Joseph's journal during the his translation of the Book of Mormon and the JST of the Bible, gave indication that Joseph was translating, but didn't explicitly state that the translations were put to paper. Yet, we know from empirical evidence that they were.

The same is true for the BoA. Most, if not all of the journal entries in the later half of 1835, merely state that Joseph was translating the ancient record, and give no explicit indication that the translations were put to paper. Yet, unarguably, we have empirical evidence that it was written down--if not given the originals, then by way off the KEP Abraham manuscripts.

So, I really don't see the absence of an explicit statement to be a convincing counter-argument against my reasonable induction. If anything, given the wealth of historical president, the absence of such explicit statements may, in a way, argue for my reasonable induction. [thumbs up]

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 14, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

-continued-

Even still, there is stronger and mounting evidence, in addition to the wealth of historical president, supporting the proposition that the preexisting translations of part of the BoA was put to paper.

In the HoC for the date of July 3rd, 1835, is recorded: "As Mr. Chandler had been told I [Joseph Smith] could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation, and like a gentleman, he gave me the following certificate: '"This is to make known to all who may be desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession, which I have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most learned; and, from the information that I could ever learn, or meet with, I and that of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., to correspond in the most minute matters. MICHAEL H. CHANDLER, Traveling with, and proprietor of, Egyptian mummies.'"

I suppose it is possible that Joseph verbally gave Chandler the translations of the characters. However, I would think it more likely that the translation was given in writing, particularly so as to facilitate a minute comparison. (see more on this later)

I had previously posted this quote from the HoC for July 5th-6th: "Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland purchased the mummies and papyrus, a description of which will appear hereafter, and with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham."

While this quote doesn't explicitly indicate that the translation was put to paper, I would think the presence of scribes during the translation strongly imply it.

John Whitmer, the official church historian in 1835, records the following for the month of July: ""About the first of July, 1835, there came a man having four Egyptian Mummies, exhibiting them for curiosities, which was a wonder indeed, having also some words connected with them which were found deposited with the mummies, but there being no one skilled in the Egyptian language therefore could not translate the record. After this exhibition Joseph the Seer saw these records and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records which gave an account of our forefathers, much of which was written by Joseph of Egypt who was sold by his brethren, which when all translated will be a pleasing history and of great value to the Saints." (Book of John Whitmer 1832-1846)

Since John Whitmer wasn't a scribe during the translation, he had to learn about the translation somehow and what it contained. This suggests to me that it was written down.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

-continued-

In a letter to his wife sent the middle of July of 1835, W.W. Phelps , one of the pre-named scribes, said: "...These records of old times, when we translate and print them in a book, will make a good witness for the Book of Mormon. There is nothing secret or hidden that shall not be revealed, and they come to the Saints."

To me, this indicates that the translations were being written down so as to eventually be printed in a book. Otherwise, how else could they be printed?

Most poignant is this statement collectively on behalf of several church leaders at the time: "it so happened that in traveling through the country, he [Chandler] visited Kirtland, Ohio, where the Prophet Joseph Smith resided, bringing the mummies and the ancient papyrus writings with him. Mr. C. [Chandler] had also obtained from learned men the best translation he could of some few characters, which however, was not a translation, but more in the shape of their ideas with regard to it, their acquaintance with the language not being sufficient to enable them to translate it literally. After some conversation with the Prophet Joseph, Mr. Chandler presented to him the ancient characters, asking him if he could translate them. The Prophet took them and repaired to his room and inquired of the Lord concerning them. The Lord told him they were sacred records, containing the inspired writings of Abraham when he was in Egypt, and also those of Joseph, while he was in Egypt; and they had been deposited, with these mummies, which had been exhumed. And he also enquired of the Lord concerning some few characters which Mr. Chandler, gave him by way of a test, to see if he could translate them. The Prophet Joseph translated these characters and returned them, with the translation to Mr. Chandler; and who, in comparing it with the translation of the same few characters by learned men, that he had before obtained, found the two to agree." (REMARKS OF CHURCH LEADERS PUBLISHED IN JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, 26 VOLS. LIVERPOOL, 1855-1886)

Evidently, as previously surmised, Chandler had written copies of what various learned men had concluded was the meaning of some of the characters, and that these same characters were given to Joseph Smith to translate, which he did by the power of God, and returned the characters along with the translation to Chandler for comparison. It seems nonsensical to me to suggests that Joseph verbal returned the translation along with the written characters, which Chandler then compared with the written statements of the learned men. Rather, it seems clear to me that the preexisting translation was written.

However, since none of these quotes explicitly state that the translation was put to paper, Kevin still has a tiny bit of wiggle room to believe they weren't. Even still, I believe there is sufficient circumstantial evidence, along with the wealth of historical president, to reasonably conclude that the preexisting translations were written.

And, as the other arguments for a preexisting text are explicated, there will be all the more reason to induce that it was written.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 14, 2011 by wenglund

[William Schryver]

Evidently, as previously surmised, Chandler had written copies of what various learned men had concluded was the meaning of some of the characters, and that these same characters were given to Joseph Smith to translate, which he did by the power of God, and returned the characters along with the translation to Chandler for comparison.

FWIW, I find this whole story highly suspect. In the first place, I don't believe Chandler had any translation of "learned men" in the east concerning the hieroglyphs. I seriously doubt anyone in America would have known how to translate anything written in Egyptian at that time. Furthermore, so long as the Saints in Kirtland were willing to fork over $2400 for the mummies and papyri, I'm pretty sure Chandler would have confirmed literally anything in the form of a translation, and said that it conformed to what he had been told by a Yeti on the top of Mt. Everest. I'm sure he took his cash and skedaddled out of town as quickly as his feet would take him.

[wenglund]

Okay, let's now move on to argument 4b:

4b. There is textual critical evidence that the EA/GAEL was not a simultaneous dictation, and was dependent upon various preexisting texts, thus establishing a president for dependency on portions of the Book of Abraham.

First, I will consider some of the evidence against a simultaneous dictation, and then I will look into the evidence for EA/GAEL dependency on preexisting texts like the KEP notebooks, the Counting document, and several D&C passages.

Ample textual evidence is available against a simultaneous dictation of the EA/GAEL, including:

1. There are three Egyptain Alphabet manuscripts, one in the handwriting of WW Phelps (EA WWP), one partially in the handwriting of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (EA JS), and one in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery (EA OC). I believe the very existence of these three manuscripts weighs against a simultaneous dictation because it seem a bit out of character for Joseph or anyone else to have two scribes taking simultaneous dictation, but it seem even more unlikely that Joseph would take dictation from himself. And, if Joseph's EA is indication that he was taking dictation, then who was doing the dictating? And, if his manuscript isn't indicative of him taking dictation, then what might that suggest about the other EA's? Also, since Cowdery's handwriting is on two of the manuscripts, it seems a bit far fetched to think he was taking dictation simultaneous on both manuscripts.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 14, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

FWIW, I find this whole story highly suspect. In the first place, I don't believe Chandler had any translation of "learned men" in the east concerning the hieroglyphs. I seriously doubt anyone in America would have known how to translate anything written in Egyptian at that time. Furthermore, so long as the Saints in Kirtland were willing to fork over $2400 for the mummies and papyri, I'm pretty sure Chandler would have confirmed literally anything in the form of a translation, and said that it conformed to what he had been told by a Yeti on the top of Mt. Everest. I'm sure he took his cash and skedaddled out of town as quickly as his feet would take him.

As indicated in the collective account, it wasn't so much a translation as it was an educated guess on the part of the learned men. I can see that happening even if others may not.

Either way, it doesn't detract from the evidence in favor of the preexisting translation having been written down.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 14, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

4b -coninued-

2. The production sequence didn't lend itself to a simultaneous dictation. It is evident to me that upon close examining of the EA's, the production sequence tended to go in the following order per part (there are five parts to the EA's): the characters were first drawn in the left column, then the sounds were added next, followed by the explanations. At the very least, drawing the characters seems far more likely to have been a copy function, rather than dictation (imagine trying to dictate the shape of 23 characters for Part 1 pictured below, particularly given that they don't show up as complete characters on the papyri, and couldn't be pointed to. Rather, it seems more plausible that they were rendered on one manuscript--likely EA WWP--and then later copied onto the other EA's).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

4b -continued-

3. Some of the characters and sounds and explanations appear to have evolved from one EA to the next, and from the EA's to the GAEL, and in several cases, from the GAEL to the one or more EA's. This evolution from EA to EA militates against a simultaneous dictation, and strongly suggest some degree of copying. For example:

a. As best I can tell, the second to the last character in the EA's that was eventually given sounds and explanations, originally consisted of two side-by-side characters in EA WWP. and was given the sound of "Za ki on hish Kulsidon hish", and the explanation, "The land of the Chaldees." The right character was then erased and drawn below the left character, and was given the sound "Za Ki on hish." However, in the EA OC the characters were evidently copied from EA WWP after the right character was erased and drawn below, and it was given the sound of Za kie on hiash or Kalsidon hiash, along with the explanation, "The land of the Chaldeans." The word "or" was then inserted between the hish and Kulsidon sounds in the EA WWP. This second to the last character isn't drawn in EA JS, nor is it given a sound or explanation.

b. As just indicated, the last character that was given a sound and explanation in the EA's, was first given the sound of "Za Ki on hish" in EA WWP. This was later struck through and replaced with the sound Ah-brah oam, and given the explanation, "The father of the faithful the first right ____ unto whom is committed." The sound was then copied to EA JS, though with a slightly different spelling, along with the same explanation. Then, the sound and explanation in EA WWP was copied to the GAEL, first degree in Part 1, and given an expanded explanation. The sound was then copied to GAEL, second degree in Part 1, and given an even further expanded explanation. Finally, in the third degree, the sound was changed to "Ah broam", and the editor then went back and struck out the old sound in the first and second degrees and replaced it with the new sound. Evidently, Cowdery later went back to the EA JS and struck through the sound and explanation for this character, and then on another page he wrote out all the sounds and explanations for this character in each of the five degrees of Part 1.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

4b-3 -continued

c. The fourth to the last character given a sound (#66 by Will's reckoning), was first given the sound of "Ah broam Ah brahoam Ki ahbra am Ki ah-bram" in EA JS. Then, in EA OC this character was given the sound "Ah broam Ah-bra oam-zub-zool-oan" (note that "Ki ahbra am Ki ah-bram" in EA JS was replaced in EA OC with "zub-zool-oan"). Then, in EA OC two "Ki"'s were inserted so that the sound read as "<Ki> Ah broam <Ki> Ah-bra oam-zub-zool-oan". Later, this sound in EA JS was completely struck through and replaced with "Ki ah-bram Ki-ah-bra-oum-zub-zool-oan." Finally, in EA WWP, this character was given the sound "Ki Ah broam Kiah brah-oam zub zool oan." This composite character is only mentioned in the GAEl once, and that is in Part 1 the 5th Degree. Nowhere in the EA or the GAEL is this composite character assigned an explanation.

d. The third to the last character given a sound (#67 by Will's reckoning), was only given a sound in two of the EA's (likely first in EA WWP and then copied to EA JS). It was not assigned a sound in EA OC. In none of the EA's was it given and explanation, though it was explained in all 5 degrees of the GAEL.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

4.b.4 In the previous section (4.b.3a-d) evidence was presented showing evolution from individual EA's to other EA's and from the individual GAEL back to individual EA's, which strongly argues against a simultaneous dictation. However, all this evidence comes from characters, sounds, and explanation that were worked on late in the EA production process, which leave open the door to claims that the simultaneous dictations may have occurred earlier in the EA production but not later on.

In this section, and in addition to what I pointed out in section 4.b.2, I intend to point out evidence from early in the production sequence that also runs contrary to the notion of a simultaneous dictation.

a. While the first page of each of the EA's appear to have two or three columns drawn on the left side of the page, only EA WWP has three English alphabet letters in the second column corresponding with the first three characters in the first column. As best I can tell, EA OC may have one letter in the second column corresponding to the first character in the first column--though a different letter than in EA WWP (Cowdery had an "a" whereas Phelps had an "X"). However, in EA JS, there is no alphabetic letters, and instead, the second column rather than the first column. contains the characters.

Since, in terms of the production sequence where the characters were drawn first and then presumably the letters, after which came the sounds and explanations, the presence of the three alphabetic letters only in EA WWP, and different from the first and only letter in EA OC, suggests to me that Phelps was working alone for a time on his EA and after the first three characters, he decided to abandon assigning English letters. Then, Cowdery worked for a bit on his own, and thought better to start off at the beginning of the English alphabet rather than at the end like Phelps, but after the first letter, he abandoned the effort. Finally, Joseph, learning from the Phelps and Cowdery, and didn't bother with the English alphabet at all, but went straight to the sounds and explanations.

In short, the presence of the three English alphabetic letters in EA WWP, and only one and a different alphabetic letter in EA OC, and no alphabetic letters in EA JS, and this early in the EA production process, is striking evidence to me against a simultaneous dictation, and for some level of independent work lead by Phelps.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

Please try and stay focused. The quotes from the HoC I cited earlier, to which you have been objecting, weren't necessarily intended, themselves, as direct support of a preexisting written text (though one may reasonably extrapolate such), but rather in support of a preexisting partial translation of the BoA--via whatever medium one may conjecture. Whether that translation was written down or not, at this point in the process of ME laying out the evidence, it is still an open question (more to come later).

I think that the possibility of Smith translating a mental version of the Book of Abraham from the papyri, only to be stored in his mind until some later date, can be ruled out as absurd. Smith had a great memory, but not that great a memory. What would be the point of going through the work of translating an extended text you believe to be scripture without writing it down? The sequence "mental Book of Abraham"-->alphabet-->"written Book of Abraham" doesn't make sense.

So, casting such absurdities aside, either (1) Smith produced a written translation prior to the EA/GAEL (of which there is no evidence other than the intuition of an amateur text critic and the fact that some contemporary statements don't specifically say it didn't happen that way), or (2) the Book of Abraham was developed after the EA/GAEL. The latter explanation requires no creative reinterpretation of journal entries, no re-casting of William Phelps as a retroactive distorter of the historical record, and no reliance on mysterious missing manuscripts.

[Pahoran]

I think that the possibility of Smith translating a mental version of the Book of Abraham from the papyri, only to be stored in his mind until some later date, can be ruled out as absurd. Smith had a great memory, but not that great a memory. What would be the point of going through the work of translating an extended text you believe to be scripture without writing it down? The sequence "mental Book of Abraham"-->alphabet-->"written Book of Abraham" doesn't make sense.

So, casting such absurdities aside, either (1) Smith produced a written translation prior to the EA/GAEL (of which there is no evidence other than the intuition of an amateur text critic and the fact that some contemporary statements don't specifically say it didn't happen that way), or (2) the Book of Abraham was developed after the EA/GAEL. The latter explanation requires no creative reinterpretation of journal entries, no re-casting of William Phelps as a retroactive distorter of the historical record, and no reliance on mysterious missing manuscripts.

But it fails to account for the obviously mature state of the Book of Abraham text as found in the KEP's (the so-called "translation manuscripts" ) and the long phrases lifted bodily from that work to provide the meaty bits of the EAG.

But the real advantage of that approach is that it is useful for those who want to explain away Latter-day Scriptures.

Which draws our attention (yet again) to the fact that when so-called scholars turn their talents to crafting anti-Mormon arguments, they are anti-Mormons first, and scholars a poor second.

Regards,

Pahoran

[livy111us]

FWIW, I find this whole story highly suspect. In the first place, I don't believe Chandler had any translation of "learned men" in the east concerning the hieroglyphs. I seriously doubt anyone in America would have known how to translate anything written in Egyptian at that time. Furthermore, so long as the Saints in Kirtland were willing to fork over $2400 for the mummies and papyri, I'm pretty sure Chandler would have confirmed literally anything in the form of a translation, and said that it conformed to what he had been told by a Yeti on the top of Mt. Everest. I'm sure he took his cash and skedaddled out of town as quickly as his feet would take him.

If that is the case, then that gives credence to Joseph Smith's ability to translate. He said this about the papyrus: “Two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c., were found with others of the mummies.”

(Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 2: 348 - 351.)

The definition for epitaph is "a commemorative inscription on a tomb or mortuary monument about the person buried at that site.

2.

a brief poem or other writing in praise of a deceased person"

This is exactly what is on the papyrus which we have today, funerary texts. If that information didn't come from previous "translators" then how did Joseph Smith get that information?

Edited November 16, 2011 by livy111us

[Cobalt-70]

I had previously posted this quote from the HoC for July 5th-6th: "Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland purchased the mummies and papyrus, a description of which will appear hereafter, and with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham."

The glyphs from JS1 (Breathing Permit of Hôr) that Joseph Smith believed represented the name "Abraham" are found early in the first Egyptian Alphabet paper. He didn't need to have translated the Book of Abraham yet.

[wenglund]

I think that the possibility of Smith translating a mental version of the Book of Abraham from the papyri, only to be stored in his mind until some later date, can be ruled out as absurd. Smith had a great memory, but not that great a memory. What would be the point of going through the work of translating an extended text you believe to be scripture without writing it down? The sequence "mental Book of Abraham"-->alphabet-->"written Book of Abraham" doesn't make sense.

I think it only fair that you allow Kevin time to make his case before dismissing his position out of hand. Who knows, he may have absolutely stunning reasons for believing the Joseph had the Abraham narrative beforehand, just not written down. Or, he may not. At least common courtesy, if not open mindedness, demands that he be given a hearing. I am willing to do so even if you are not.

So, casting such absurdities aside, either (1) Smith produced a written translation prior to the EA/GAEL (of which there is no evidence other than the intuition of an amateur text critic and the fact that some contemporary statements don't specifically say it didn't happen that way), or (2) the Book of Abraham was developed after the EA/GAEL. The latter explanation requires no creative reinterpretation of journal entries, no re-casting of William Phelps as a retroactive distorter of the historical record, and no reliance on mysterious missing manuscripts.

This is an unfortunate and self-serving caricature of both positions, which seems to suggest to me a lack of fair-mindedness and good faith on the part of its author. However, I will reserve judgement, and leave it to the reader to decide. I hold out no hope that the many layers of arguments I have set forth thus far, and will continue to set forth in favor of my position, will be thoroughly persuasive to everyone. And I am okay with that. I just don't personally see the need to considerably understate opposing views and grossly inflate my own view, But, then, I am not insecure about my position.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The glyphs from JS1 (Breathing Permit of Hôr) that Joseph Smith believed represented the name "Abraham" are found early in the first Egyptian Alphabet paper. He didn't need to have translated the Book of Abraham yet.

Assuming you are correct about the glyph (please identify the glyph to which you are referring and where in the EA and associated explanation I may find mention of Abraham), the first recorded mention of the Egyptian Alphabet in Joseph's journal or the HoC, post date by several weeks the translation event I quoted. It would be quite something for Joseph to, during the first part of July, have learned what was on the papyri supposedly using a devise that wouldn't be created until the later part of July, and do so in a way that conflicts with what was authoritatively declared as the means of translation. But, I suppose even in the minds of critics, astonishing miracles can happen.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 16, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

4.b.4 -continued-

b. One noticeable difference between WWP and the other two EA's is that the second page of the WWP is written in portrait page format (where the width of the page is shorter than the height) like the first page, whereas J-S and OC were written in landscape page format (where the width of the page is longer than the height), the opposite from their first pages. What I induce for this difference is that it became clear when the second page of WWP was written, that the text for the various explanations didn't fit all that well the allotted single lines per character, and so the decision was made to switch to landscape format for the other EA's so as to better accommodate the text. If so, then WWP page 2 was written prior to the same page in J-S and OC.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 16, 2011 by wenglund

[Ares]

Personal remarks have been removed. Xander is banned from this thread. Anyone else who feels the need to level personal attacks will be banned as well.